There was the seasonal Prada casting-discussion going on the last few pages and somehow I cant understand why people claim that Prada castings have no impact. Statistics alone prove otherwise. This is about fashion, about opinion leading. It doesnt matter if we think some faces are bland, since it's Prada it's the leading opinion, period. This line-up will be scrutinized in varied circles over the next 6 months, be sure of that. And every season there will be surely 1 or 2 new faces that manage to stick around and shine, after all the people casting them are pro's. Natural selection will prevent most of them from surviving anyway. That's still a great score in launching faces, only CK, Balenciaga and lately Alexander Wang can claim similar achievements.
Givenchy didnt exactly cash in on their 15 or so exclusives last season did they? And no Tisci didnt exactly launch Daphne Groeneveld. Mert & Marcus did, Carine did, cos thats who really counts these days; Photographers, editors and stylists.

So you're saying that since Prada/Givenchy have hype surrounding their casting, that fact automatically makes their casts more exciting? Thus, if Gucci spread a rumor two days prior to their show "Guess which 10+ year veteran will open and close our show on Wednesday?" and everyone then wasted 5 pages here on tFS speculating about it, their cast would then somehow be more 'exciting'? See, I think this is precisely where Prada/Givenchy/CK/Marc Jacobs have gone wrong. They have let the hype and the need for "excitement" dictate their casting and at this point (maybe Givenchy not quite yet) they all have fallen victim to it. Their casts are all about the hype and little else. Since 90% of the casts are bland newbies who will most likely not be heard back from at this time next year, how does that make for a good cast? I just don't understand that. Hype is good. Having people excited is good. But at the end of the day, you have to deliver the goods.

ummmm. they take the risk! they start the girls, gucci doesn't. its easy to book pros. its not innovative. mark/muccia.nicolas/riccardo take the risk. the others just takes what sticks.

^@Jacquelineo; I think that's a pretty great number actually. Kati is undeniably successful, Marte turned into a fixture, Frida has quite fans in print and the others havent exactly disappeared into obscurity either, did they? There can be many reasons for the latter category though; personal energy, work ethic, background and culture and of course talent. A casting director cannot get a fair grasp on all of these aspects initially.

Like I said earlier Alexander Wang is also getting the hang of it; Mirte, Aymeline, Maria Bradley and I think also now Irina Kravchenko have been Wang openers.
Not all my cup of tea but still quite distinctive and successful choices. Only Britt Maren was an odd one out for me...

^^^^ Kati, Romee and Antonia were not Prada exclusives. Nadine was semi, since she walked Dolce, Marni, Missoni & Versus after Prada.
And Frida was a direct booking, Versace wanted her too but she back to her home right after Prada show because of school.Posted via Mobile Device

I'm not model obsessed but being fashion obsessed for many years now I think the power of Prada isn't really names or specific faces but being influential enough as to get away with introducing and establishing aesthetics, in modeling, fashion, etc. Naturally names/faces are bound to come along, reason why the biggest names have all passed through Prada. This expectation that any girl cast in Prada has to be a success and if it isn't then Prada's castings aren't all that is making up Prada to be some kind of modeling agency.. when, even though I'm not really a fan of Miuccia, I think she's consistent on design being the primary focus of the brand.

Anyway, as unpopular as it may be, for me the best casting is right at Ann Demeulemeester. It's always consistent, it doesn't succumb to trends (like Prada), it respects modeling as a career (reason why models continue to appear and are not discarded like trash the next season) and is generally more experimental with beauty standards.

In a lesser scale, Dries Van Noten and Lanvin also combine longevity and new quite well.

Balmain's castings are always the worst for me, it's a never-ending parade of the overexposed, the one-dimensional, bland overpaid girls and the 3-4 potential newbies with enough support to build that Balmain-meets-Vogue Paris career.

I also detest the restricted vision of how the Calvin Klein women should look, as exemplified in their shows.

ummmm. they take the risk! they start the girls, gucci doesn't. its easy to book pros. its not innovative. mark/muccia.nicolas/riccardo take the risk. the others just takes what sticks.

What risks are you talking about? I don't see where are the risks when most agencies are following what they say or do like sheep would. Especially when you say Marc Jacobs takes risks, I've got big troubles to follow you... He basically takes a whole bunch of unpaid newbies. I agree there is a certain aesthetic statement in his casts but I don't think he is striving for recognition as "model maker". Same for Prada (even if Prada's cast is obviously done on another purpose), they take zero risks doing what they do. Agencies just send them and don't even complain when the girls got dropped five minutes before the show.

Then, I disagree when you say others just takes what sticks. I don't think JPG or, as MulletProof said, Ann Demeulemeester just to give two examples among others, take easy and conventional choices. This kind of casting is much more interesting to me. They are clearly about the designer's aesthetic and not just about getting attention for appearing as a pioneer or whatsoever.

somehow I cant understand why people claim that Prada castings have no impact. Statistics alone prove otherwise. This is about fashion, about opinion leading. It doesnt matter if we think some faces are bland, since it's Prada it's the leading opinion, period.

I've never said it has no impact, at all. I've just said its impact has to be considered differently. And as for statistics... I don't completely agree. Count also the successful ones that didn't take that route and the ones that were exclusives at Prada, CK, Jil Sander and others and never did anything after. Also in the statistics, we don't have all the girls who were "in option" and never got a chance while they would have if they had a "normal" fashion week. Agencies are a bit guilty for this...

On another hand, I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding Givenchy. If the buzz surrounding Prada is already way too much for me, Givenchy's exclusive gig is simply overrated and pointless.

What risks are you talking about? I don't see where are the risks when most agencies are following what they say or do like sheep would. Especially when you say Marc Jacobs takes risks, I've got big troubles to follow you... He basically takes a whole bunch of unpaid newbies. I agree there is a certain aesthetic statement in his casts but I don't think he is striving for recognition as "model maker". Same for Prada (even if Prada's cast is obviously done on another purpose), they take zero risks doing what they do. Agencies just send them and don't even complain when the girls got dropped five minutes before the show.

Then, I disagree when you say others just takes what sticks. I don't think JPG or, as MulletProof said, Ann Demeulemeester just to give two examples among others, take easy and conventional choices. This kind of casting is much more interesting to me. They are clearly about the designer's aesthetic and not just about getting attention for appearing as a pioneer or whatsoever.

i guess what i mean that the other shows are more predictable. its a formula and i don't find it particularly exciting. Ann demeulemester - you know what that show is going to look like - she will never stick a VS girl in the show to challenge the way you look at her clothes.

marc takes all the girls that no one else takes and i do think thats a risk and it also gives those girls a shot at walking in a big show, that they probably won't ever have. if everyone was using "the established" models, everyones show would be the same rotation of the same 40 girls. designers also want to set their shows apart from everyone else's. i get that - its a show!. Also, who said they want to be model makers? We all judge this from that perspective - that if the girl doesn't do well after their show, then are a "blip" or whatever you call it and the casting is bad. who said they all have to be stars and why is it a failure of casting if they don't become stars? maybe its just a moment the way fashion is a moment.